The defence would adopt all the submissions made at the dose of
the case for the prosecution as if all the said submissions are repeated. It is urged upon
Your Lordship to kindly read our submissions in the light of the defence.

It is trite law that the burden Is upon the prosecution
throughout The trial. including during and at the end of the defence case to prove a ease
beyond reasonable doubt. Although by S 180 CPC the prosecution is only required to prove a
prima facie ease at the close of its case. S I 82A of the CPC requires the prosecution to
prove a case beyond reasonable doubt which Your Lordship has opined is a higher burden
compared to the "prima facie" burden.

At this stage of the proceedings it is submitted that the court
must undcrtake a maximum evaluation of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses in
order to decide whether the prosecution has succeeded in discharging its burden of proving
a case beyond reasonable doubt viewed with the defence case.

See: SAIMIN v PP (1971) 2 MLJ 16 which was adopted approved and
applied by the Supreme Court in MOHD RADHI v PP (1991)3 MLJ 169 In the instant case no
presumptions are applicable. The prosecution has to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt
based on the evidence. In fact the presumption of innocence operates in favour of the
accused.

It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove a ease
beyond reasonable doubt and the defence has cast more than a reasonable doubt on the
prosecution case on the following grounds:-

Did Ummi Hafilda make the allegations contained in P14B.

1. P14B - is not signed.

2. See D99 - Drafted and prepared by her lawyer Mr. Yeoh

3. No police report against lawyer Yeoh or anyone else.

4. D90 "purportedly written" - allegedly written.

5. DSAI's evidence earlier letter to PM - Not P14B

6. Ummi's evidence does not say there was more than one letter

7. So conclude only one letter.

8. PM not called by prosecution to prove he received P14A. B and
C.

9. Not even as rebuttal witness.

10. Azmin corroborated DSAI that P14B not the letter that DSAI
gave to him to be shredded.

11. Best Evidence Rule. PM should have been called,

12. Put to SP1 and SP11  whether there was an earlier
letter. Could not say, In no position to say no.

13. Very serious doubt that P14B is actually letter of Ummi-
P14B not signed-  P14A merely a covering letter is signed.

14. Ummi's denial to Azmin on 30/6/98 and 14/7/98.

15. We have raised a reasonable doubt that P14B is Ummi's
allegations.

16. Dato Seri Anwar and Azmin very positive that the contents of
the letter to PM were different and milder. No reason to doubt.Personal knowledge.

17. SP1 said P15 believed written by same group as letter (P14 A
,B and C). Ummi is not a group.

18. More than a reasonable doubt raised by the defence as
against the word of only Ummi who is certainly not a witness of any credibility or
veracity.

19. A person disowned by her father.

20. A person who can destroy, humiliate and embarrass the whole
family to satisfy her hatred for DSAI.

23. See P21 and P22. Without a shadow of doubt P14B is NOT
Ummi's letter.

24. Benefit of doubt or ambiguity must be given to DSAI.

Did Azizan (PW12) write P14C.

Azizan in cross-examination said he only told Ummi's
"berapa kali dan tempat". Therefore the details in P14C were added by Ummi.
Azizan never said he is the author of the whole of the contents of P14C. DSAI said in
evidence that when Azizan saw him on 18/8/97 at his house, he said to did not sign P14C
and later said he signed but did not read.

What is most important is that Azizan with the help of his
solicitor, Mr. Sukdev Singh, did a Statutory Declaration which is D55 denying that he had
anything to do with the contents of the Buku 50 Dalil. This must mean that he had nothing
to do with P14C which is the most important aspect of the contents of the book relating to
Azizan.

The defence had called the Commissioner of Oaths, DW8, to
confirm that the Statutory Declaration was voluntary and Mr. Sukhdev Singh did not in any
way influence him. We also attempted to call Encik Faiz Abdullah to confirm that Azizan
told him in the presence of Mr. Sukhdev Singh that the signature on P14C was not his.But
this Honourable Court disallowed such evidence.There is nothing more that the defence
could have done.

It must be remembered that the defence asked the I.O.. PW13,
whether the signature on P14C was sent to the document examiner. The answer was no.

In all the facts and circumstances, we submit that there is
again the gravest of doubt that P14C is signed by Azizan. In any event it cannot be
doubted that the contents of P14C are certainly on Azizan's own evidence not his.

The benefit of doubt should be in favour of DSAI.

SUBMIT:

Court should hold both P14 B and P14C not proved beyond a
reasonable doubt to be the very letter of Ummi and Azizan send to the Prime Minister.The
prosecution could have but did not call the IGP or Dato Seri Megat Junid to clear the
doubt.

NO INSTRUCTIONS TO GET RETRACTIONS

SP1'S EVIDENCE

1. He requested me to look into the matter.

2. By look into the matter I mean for us to ENQUIRE further.

3. SP1 briefs IGP on request by Dato Seri Anwar.

4. IGP instructed to do further inquiries and to find out more
about these letters.

5. 12/8/97 talked with DSAI about Ummi and letter.

6. Discussed latest development with DSAI.

7. REQUESTED to find Ummi and Azizan.

8. Interview them. Gempar to surprise them and to put a little
fear in them. NOT TURNOVER/NEUTRALISE.

9. Accused asked as to investigate FULLY on this matter.

10. Both of us managed to convince him to make a police report.

11. I mentioned, Tuan Musa bin Hj.Hassan would be the
appropriate person to investigate this case.

12. Since the report was made, planned with Zulkifli, Mazlan and
Musa on the approach and division of work.

13. We told that once the arrest is made, SB would like to
interview them first.

14. Zulkifli left earlier to take statement from Zul Aznam.

15. I was instructed by IGP to go to Dato' Anwar Ibrahim's
house.

16. After some conversation, he directed us that the two
arrestees, Umi and Azizan retract their allegations.

17. I told the officers looking at the economic climate and
political climate, we could not afford to have any instability with regards to secunty.

18. I gave instructions before they left my room, ACP Mazlan to
interview Azizan Abu Bakar and ASP Aziz to interview Umi Hafilda.

19. On 18th August, noon, we were called by the Accused to his
house. We briefed him on the result of the interrogation and by then, we told him that
both of them had already retracted their allegations.

20. We told him in the afternoon earlier that they already
changed their stand and that they were willing to retract their allegations. During this
meeting, the Accused directed us that these two arrestees should write letters of apology
addressed to YAB Perdana Menteri.

21. At about 6.00 p.m. same day, did ASP Aziz come to see you?
Yes. he came to show me the first draft of the letter from Umi. It was not good enough so
I asked him to get a more committed letter from Umi. The first draft was not very clear. I
thought the letter was not good enough to be sent to the Prime Minister. The sentences and
the words were not good enough. The apology was not good enough.

22. Yes, he read both letters. In respect of ID17 , the Accused
was satisfied with ID17. He was not very happy with ID 18.

23. The issue concerned the Accused and since the letters were
addressed to the Prime Minister, I thought I had to tell the Accused.

24. I did inform the Court that the Accused was not very pleased
with ID18 and that night he directed us to get in touch with Umi and Azizan then to get
another set of letters to fully declare that the Accused is not involved in any sex
scandal. No evidence Accused unhappy with P17.Further assuming such direction was given
P19-P22 not such letters as per alleged instructions i.e. " to fully declare that the
Accused is not involved in any sex scandal"

25. We briefed the IGP on the Accused directions.

SUBMIT: The IGP would not have tolerated Dato Anwar Ibrahim
giving directions to police.

26. Yes. I directed the two to interrogate the two arrestees.

27. Yes, at that time I was interested in the truth of the
allegations.

CROSS

28. Accused requested us to investigate further.

29. Q: The Accused told you to investigate the matter deeply?

A: Yes he said that.

30. Q: As an expetienced, senior police officer, when someone
requests you to investigate the matter deeply, he is in effect asking you to investigate
the matter from every aspect and from all angles?

A: Yes, all aspects.

SUBMITS: This is a contradiction in terms. Cannot be possible to
as alleged instruct or direct to get retractions and in the same breath ask the matter to
be investigated fully and deeply from all aspects.

31. Q: Does neutralising mean turning Untruths to truth and
truth to untruths?

A: No.

32. Q: When you were investigating, were you or were you not
interested in the truth?

A: Yes

Judge: Were you or were you not

A: Yes

DC. Q: From beginning to the end?

33. Q: If your superior ask you to do something that is wrong in
law, would you do it?

A: No. I would not.

34. Q: Would you do anything if asked by IGP or Minister of Home
Affairs. or anybody that would bring disrepute to the Police Force or yourself?

A: No. I would not.

35. Q: I put it to you that you did say to the Accused
repeatedly that these allegations were politically motivated?

A: Yes.

Q: You said that you were concerned about the truth and would
not do anything that would bring disrepute to Police Force. you remember?

A: Yes.

Q: Under oath. you said you wont do anything illegal or
anything that would bring disrepute and dishonour to the Police Force. right?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you do anything that was disreputable or anything that
you would be ashamed of for the rest of your life?

A: When I did the operation, I did not think it would lead to
something that is disreputable. I did not know tat when I started it would become this
way.

Q: Did you do anything disreputable when you asked for the
allegations to be retracted?

A: When I did the operation, I did not think it was going to be
illegal or disreputable. If Dato Anwar Ibrahim had done anything unlawful, wrong or
improper surely SP1 who was PCK and Director of CID for 3 years would have known.

39. Judge: When you got the retraction die you realise what you
were doing was wrong?

A: Yes I did not know.

40. Q: If instruction is given to you by someone important you
are prepared to freak the law?

A: There are things tat happen to you do not know how they will
turn. When we started the ops. we did not think that it was going to be illegal.

Q: Are you saying you are prepared to commit an illegal act if
the instructions came from the Accused?

A: Prepared, my lord. I do not know. Prepared?

41. Q: He asked you to investigate fully, does that not mean
that you get to the truth. Thorough investigation of all aspects?

A: When be said investigate, it means to find out more about the
letter.

Q: As an experienced police officer does that not mean to get to
the truth of the matter?

A: Yes.

42. Q: Did you direct any of your officers to use inducement
threat or promise to get a confession or Statement?

A: No.

Q: Did any of your officers informed you that they use
inducement threat or force to obtain statements from Ummi and Azizan?

A: No.

43. Yes the investigations in respect of P16 against Ummi and
Azizan has to be conducted in accordance with S112 of CPC.

44. Q: At no time did you instruct your officers to force Ummi
and Azizan to tell lies?

A: Yes,I did not at any time.

45. Q: When you briefed the IGP did he not tell you to look into
the matter and find out the truth?

A: Yes , he may have.

46. Thereafter I kept Dato' Seri Anwar briefed and updated on
the progress of the investigations.

47. The press report by IGP (D24) was after I briefed the IGP.
It is similar to a certain extent with D23.

48. D25 stated that the investigations were also from other
sources.

49. Q: You mentioned earlier that the IGP instructed you to
investigate. so you would have investigated without instructions from Dato' Anwar?

A: Yes. I would have carried on investigations without the
Accused' s instructions.

50. Q: Would you agree right from the start. DS Anwar requested
you to look into this matter fully/deeply?

60. I agreed with them that the matter should be
investigated thoroughly or as SPI said deeply.

61. To find out the truth.

62. I was keen that they investigate thoroughly and get to the
bottom of it.

63. I suggested that they should investigate billy to get the
truth out form Ummi and Azizan.

64. Did not instruct PW1 and PW11 to get retractions

65. No instructions to get kenyataan Umum.

66. Cautioned Statement D72 also stated no instructions.

SUBMIT: This fact is confirmed by SPI

Since this was PUT by the DPP it is part of the prosecution
case. This fact alone completely destroys and demolishes the prosecution case and renders
the allegations of SP1 and SP11 that DSAI gave instructions to retract completely untrue
and again materially corroborates Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahims defence in a very
cogent manner.

72. Although there is no need in law for the defence to be
corroborated, yet the defence is materially corroborated by DW2. ASP Zull Aznam which
shows that the Special Branch was keen to obtain the retractions quickly. Refer to
telephone conversation between PW11 and ASP Zull Aznan (DW2) of 17/8/97 night.

73. Also corroborated by Mohd Azmin (DWI4) that SPI on 11/8/97
requested him to speak to Umi to retract the allegations.

SUBMIT:

On all the above evidence, there can be no doubt that Dato' Seri
Anwar Ibrahim did not give instructions as alleged. SP1 s and SP11 s evidence
is a contradiction in terms. The facts is that Dato Sen Anwar Ibrahim requested for full
and thorough investigations to get to the bottom and to find out the truth. That cannot be
a crime. The defence version is corroborated by SP1 and SP11 as well as 9W2 and DWl4. To
top it all, the DPP also PUT in line with the defence version of requests for thorough
investigations and fully D72 is also relevant and a corroboration.

At the very least this Honourable Court surely must entertain
doubt. the benefit of which the law gives to the Accused.

Further if from the set of facts the court can make two
inferences the inference in favour of the accused should be made in law.

(See Tai Chai Kheh vs. PP 1948~1949 MLJ Supp. Pg. 105, 108.)

WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS WERE RETRACTED AS ALLEGEDLY
DIRECTED

On the assumption that there were directions or instructions as
alleged it is the defence submission that there were no such retractions.

The sum total of PW1 and PW11 evidence is the they never
instructed SP2 and SP7 to do anything unlawful or to get Umi orAzizan to lie.

SP1 also said he never told his officers to use inducement
threat or promise against Umi and Azizan.

SP1 said that SB officers are police officer who must conduct
investigation in accordance with S112 of the CPC. The concepts of "turning over"
and "neutralising" are unknown to the law and have no sanction of the law.

These concepts are a frolic of the Special Branch which the law
and this Honourable Court enforcing the law cannot condone or sanction. All methods of
police investigations must withstand crucial secrutiny.

See: Dato Mokhtar Hashim v PP (1983) 2 MLJ 232 @ 274

It is submitted that this Honourable Court must reject in toto
tile evidence of SP2 and SP7 as regards the methods of investigations allegedly adopted by
them for otherwise to accept such evidence from most unscrupulous and unprincipled police
officers who shamelessly and proudly state the unlawful methods adopted would at least
impliedly be construed to mean that the court would tolerate such Lifter misbehavior on
the part of the police investigating agency. This the Honourable Court must avoid at all
costs. To put it bluntly SP2's and SP7s conduct which is on their own admission
unlawful. must be struck down by rejecting their evidence. The unlawful acts are not even
pursuant to instruction from SP1 and SP11 although superior unlawful orders cannot be
complied with iii law. Both Ummi and Azizan did not complain or lodge police reports
against SP2 and SP7 until now. It is very easy for them to now change their stories and
say that they were threatened or induced into making P17 and P18. Their conduct in not
making police reports despite having consulted legal advisors shows and is consistent with
the letters P17~P22 being voluntary. It is also so stated in the report of SP1, . D25 that
the letters were voluntary. D25 also confirms that the report is also based on
investigations from other sources besides Umi and Azizan. SP1 in no uncertain terms said
that P17 and P18 were not fabricated or concocted by the police. It therefore must be
voluntary statements of PWL2 and PW17. No one, not even PWI2 and PW17. have said that the
contents of P17-P22 are untrue. Surely the court is interested in the truth.

The contents of the statements. P17 and P18. Are such that only
PW12 and PW17 would have had such facts in their possessions. Both P17 and P18 were
handwritten by them. DSAI had no part at all in the wording or drafting of P17 and P18.
Neither did PW 1. PW2. PW7 nor PW 11. In fact both P17 and P18 were not even shown to Al
in draft form for approval. Nor were the drafts read to Al. Copies of P17 and P18 were
given to Al on the night of 18/8/97 Although SP1 said AI was unhappy with P18 yet he said
nothing and did nothing about it. Then how would it be that the letter.

P18 - was in accordance with the alleged instruction of Al who
was not even shown or notified of the contents of P17 and P18. Al did not ask for P17 and
P18. SP1 said he gave Al P17 and P18 because it concerned him. P17 and P1 8 are not
letters of retractions.

The investigations of Umi and Azizan were done by SP2 and SP7.

DSAI never spoke to SP2 and SP7, never asked SP2 and SP7 to
induce or threaten Umi and Azizan. Therefore the letters P17 and P18 obtained by SP7 and
SP7 have no nexus or connections with DSAI. If SP2 and SP 7 employed unlawful methods of
investigation, it has absolutely nothing to do with Al. It is a frolic or fault of their
own. In fact SP2 and SP7 committed a crime in doing so.

See: S 166 and 167 Penal Code.

No one could have forced the hands of Azizan and Umi to write
P17 and P18. It must be free and voluntary statements. The contents speak for themselves.
The police could not have invented the contents of P18 where high political personalities
are mentioned. The police would not have dared. It would only have been volunteered by
Umi. It is also the solemn truth. No one has said otherwise.

See: Juraimi & others v PP (1998) 1 MU 537

D25 also states that the statements are voluntary. SP1 in his
oral evidence said because they were handwritten they were voluntary. Could the SB be
expected to obtain statements in order to mislead the Honourable Prime Minister and IGP.
If they can do so, they deserve absolutely no credibility or veracity.

In any event P17 and P18 are not retractions but letters of
apology. The prosecution also so stated in the course of the prosecution case.

*** (Missing 1 Page)

The above submissions also apply to P19-P22. It was
alleged that DSAI wanted the letters to fully declare that the accused is not
involved in any sex scandal"

But P19 - P22 which contain handwritten and typed versions made
whilst PW12 and PW17 were not even in custody are not such letters at all.

It is therefore crystal clear that the letters P17. P18. P19.
P20. P21 and P22 were not obtained by the police as allegedly directed by DSAI.

DID THE ACCUSED OBTAIN ANY ADVANTAGE

Firstly the evidence of SP1 states that AI was unhappy
with P18. Yet the evidence is that AI said nothing about P18. Similarly P17 is not a
retraction letter.

P17 and P18 were addressed to the Prime Minister. Accused never
used P17- P22 in any manner. The Honorable Prime Minister had in early August 1997 told AI
to read and destroy and learn to ignore such allegations. That being the Honourable Prime
Minister's advice and attitude, surely when the Honorable Prime Minister gave the letter
dated 5/8/97 (not P14 A. 13 and C) and told him to read and destroy, he was treating the
allegations as untrue. malicious and an attempt to sabotage DSAI from succeeding as a
Prime Minister. This statement was made by the Honourable Prime Minister. Please see D23
which is confirmed by the reporter.

DSAI also testified that the allegations in P14 which were
malicious. baseless and defamatory need not necessarily adversely affect his good name.
What matters is the situation in August 1997. At that time the Prime Minister had
repeatedly expressed the fullest confidence in DSAI as Deputy Prime Minister. Even with
the allegations the Honourable Prime Minister advised DSAI to ignore the allegations and
learn from his experience. He gave him the letter and told him to "read and
destroy".

There was no dispute or challenge as to this. The Accused
continued to enjoy the fullest confidence of the Prime Minister and the public. He had on
the advice of the SP1 and SP11 lodged a police report so that the law could take its
course and the matter investigated. It was investigated by both S.B. and C.I.D.

Therefore DSAI was not concerned or affected. Note PW11
complained to DW2 that DSAI was taking the matter very lightly.

DSAI also so testified.

He was not even vindictive against Umi and Azizan. He
demonstrated his kindself and was noble and magnanimous to forgive Azizan and Umi. He did
not even want theni to be detained for long. No one in that situation would have been so
kind. "SP1 dan SP11 1 kata DSAI baik hati. Orang macam itu pun masih kasihan
lagi."

Although this Honorable Court has time and again reminded us
that the falsity of the allegations are not relevant, with which we beg to differ. it has
in law to be assumed that the allegations were false. It is submitted that being so. where
then is there any question of advantage to be derived when not only DSAI knew the
allegations to be false but also the police had so found by their investigations and
reported so to the Prime Minister and the IGP resulting in D23 and D24. The allegations
did not in any manner affects DSAI.

AI did not even make use of P20 or P22 until 25/8/98 when he
wrote to the Prime Minister. From the evidence there is no indication that DSAI in any
manner made use of P17  P22 to benefit himself.

Re-Exam

Q: Did you derive any benefit from the two letters P17 and P18?

A: With regards to P17 and P18 I derived no advantage or benefit
Whatsoever. It is just like being accused of being a murderer and the allegations are
withdrawn the next day. Mv contention has consistently been that the al1egations were
malicious and scurrilous and must be rejected.

If the allegations are proven true. then and only then. could
one possibly contend that a retraction or withdrawal would bc of advantage. On the
contrary. if the allegations are false or deemed to be false then the question of any
advantage cannot arise.

Further to amount to or constitute a "corrupt
practice" there must be some element OF dishonest or deceit. if the allegations are
not proven to be true there cannot be any question of "corrupt practice".

In conclusion it is submitted that the question and ingredient
of saving himself from embarrassment cannot arise and is not proven by the prosecution.

A politician has to learn to live with and weather such
allegations from certain quarters. Even the Prime Minister gets such malicious
allegations.

Further at the relevant time i.e. August 1997 there was not even
a suggestion, indication, consideration on contemplation of any criminal action or
proceedings against DSAI.

On the contrary DSAI was a victim and a complainant. He reported
through his ADC Zull Aznam i.e. P16. There was absolutely no investigations against him
then. His 112 statement was taken by Musa PWI3 on 19/8/97. A 112 statement is taken from a
witness, in this case a complainant. Similarly Insp Zulkifli took a 112 statement from ASP
Zull Aznam. That investigation was against Umi and Azizan as a result of P16 which
admittedly was lodged to facilitate police investigation and arrest of Umi and Azizan. No
one is charged for lodging a false report P16. Where on earth then is there a saving from
criminal action in August 1997 when it was in no ones mind or imagination, least of
all, was it in the mind of the police or the Honourable AG. Certainly it was not even
dreamt of by DSAI.

On the contrary the Honourable AG was recommending and urging
DSAI to proceed with action against the culprits. He was keen but being a gentleman had to
accede and comply with the wishes and advice of the Honourable Prime Minister. As such it
is absolutely clear that there was no question of DSAI doing anything in August 1997 to
save himself of any criminal action or proceeding and as such the question of deriving
does not arise. This submission would also apply toour submission that there was no
mensrea and knowledge.

It is reiterated that the alleged "advantage" even if
it accrues to DSAI does not come within the scope and ambit of the definition of
"corrupt practice" under Section2 of the E.O. The case of NUNIS which construed
and interpreted the phrase other advantage" was a case which was related to a
business or benefit which involved money. The E.O. was promulgated to widen the campaign
against bribery and corruption as stated by the F.C. in Tan Cheng Swees and Abdul
Ghani's case.

By no stretch of imagination can the alleged acts come within
the scope and ambit of bribery an d corruption or "corrupt practice". Surely it
is trite law that a penal statute must be strictly construed and if there is any ambiguity
then the Honourable Court should construe and interpret the provision so as to accord an
accused the benefit of that doubt and ambiguity It is submitted respectfully that to
construe and interpret the alleged acts, even if true. for sake of argument. would lead to
an absurdity and would be ridiculous. It would be an unwarranted strain and stretch of the
language to extend and include the alleged acts of DSAI. It would not be a realistic
interpretation.

HAS DSAIS DEFENCE RAISED A REASONABLE DOUBT ON THE
PROSECUTION CASE

An accused person is in law presumed innocent until
proven guilty. This case hinges upon the evidence of PW1, PW11 , PWI2 and PW17. PW1 and
PWl1 are interested witnesses who are also accomplices. They must firstly save themselves
from deprivation of their pensions and gratuities. They were both on leave prior to
retirement and had vet to draw pensions or gratuities. They would naturally be actuated by
the powerful desire of self preservation to save their own skins. Their evidence was very
weak would be self serving and would be at the expense of the Accused.

They have a purpose of their own to serve and ulterior motives.

Similarly PW12 who is a self admitted criminal, is not charged
under S 377D of the Penal Code for being allowed to be sodomised. He has the prospect of
being charged hanging upon him like a Sword of Damocles. He is the only known person not
charged under S 377D unlike Sukma and Munawar.

Can he be expected to give evidence in an untainted, impartial
and honest manner. He would naturally fear prosecution should he not give evidence to cugy
favour with the police or the prosecution. He is to that extent a witness with an interest
and motive and a purpose of his own to serve. He too would be actuated by the desire of
self preservation to overstate tile case against DSAI and go to the extent of saying the
incredible and unbelievable version that he was an unwilling or passive partner in sodomy.
How ridiculous for a so called man.

PWl7s hatred for DSAI is too obvious. We just have to read
D89 to know the nature of this person who bears utter hatred and malice against DSAI. Her
own lather disowned her. Her brother DWI4 described her as a 'compulsive liar'. She denies
her own Statutory Declaration, D55.

It is submitted that all the above witnesses are not independent
but interested witnesses who have their own ulterior motives and purposes to serve. They
are inimical to the Accused. Please see Liow Siow Long v PP (1970) 1 MLJ

40. The Court should reject their evidence especially in the
light of the defence. Alternatively the court should seek corroboration of their evidence.

The Accused in not obliged to prove his innocence. He is only
required to raise a reasonable doubt. He is also entitled to invoke the presumption of
innocence.

Be that as it may, it is submitted that DSAI has proved his
complete innocence. His defence given on oath is corroborated by his cautioned statement
D72. His evidence is corroborated to a great degree by SP1, SP11, DW2, DW8. DWI4 as well
as by D55 and D90. There is nothing more that can be expected from an accused. DSAI gave
evidence in an honest. frank and forthright manner. His defence should not be doubted.

Although there is no duty upon the defence to corroborate its
defence, yet we did so with the evidence of DW2. DW8. DW14 and the documentary evidence of
D23, D24, D25, D75 and IDD123.

The prosecution although indicating that they may call rebuttal
evidence. did not do so. As such it is submitted that the adverse inference against the
prosecution should be invoked for failure to call rebuttal evidence from the Honourable
Prime Minister, the Honourable A.G.. the IGP. Dato Megat Junid and Tun Daim. The defence
cannot be expected to call the said witnesses who are so obviously hostile against DSAI.
These witnesses were specificulix named in the prosecution and defence case and yet no
attempt was made to call them in the prosecution case, or at least. offer them for
cross-examination to the defence or even as rebuttal witnesses of which the prosecution
gave notice to the defence in the defence case.

See: Tan Too Kia PP(1980)2 MLJ 187.

The court is also entitled to the best evidence.

See: PP v Chee Kon Fatt (1991 ) 3 CLJ 2564.

The highly convincing evidence given by DSAI in a frank, candid
and cool manner, which is corroborated by an independent police officer ASP Zull Aznam DW2
and DWI4 Encik Azmin Ali who chose to give truthful evidence rather than give evidence in
line with his natural sister, it is submitted should be accepted by Your Lordship as
reasonable, probable and believable. There is no duty in law upon the court to even
believe the defence. All that is required is whether it creates a reasonable doubt. See:

1. Mohd Radhi v PP(1991)3 MLJ 169

2. Pang Chee Meng v PP (1992)1 MLJ 137

In order to cast a doubt, the burden upon the accused is a very
slight one.

See: Wong Chooi PP (1967)2 MLJ 180

Thus there is not even a duty upon the accused to show a defence
that is true or to be believed by this Honourable Court.

It is not proposed to set out in detail the evidence of DSAI and
the witnesses of the defence as well as the documentary evidence in support as all
evidence is still fresh in our minds. But we would like to emphasis and reiterate that the
whole case of the prosecution collapsed when the learned DPP put. what has been the
defence of DSAI from commencement of the case i.e.:

Surely the learned DPP cannot PUT without basis. It must be so
revealed in the I.P. This the cruz of the defence case which was also PUT by the
prosecution. Surely this is very vital and material corroboration of DSAI's version. SPI
also agreed that DSAI made such requests to thoroughly. deeply and fully investigate the
matter from all angles and aspects.

We would adopt the evidence of DSAI set out above in support of
our submission that we have created a reasonable doubt. Although suspicion no matter how
grave is not a substitute for proot in this the prosecution has not even succeeded in
raising a suspicion against DSAI.

ID 123 SHOULD BE CONVERTED TO D123

It is submitted that ID 123 ought to be converted to
D123. It was put in the prosecution case to SP1 that there was a second report dated
3/9/97. Although at one time SP1 said there could have been two reports. he later denied
that there was a second report. It was put to him that he gave a copy of the second report
to DSAI. A perusal of DW1 s evidence in cross examination shows that he was quite
uncertain whether there were one or two reports. He admitted there could be more than one
report and there could be two reports. Therefore the question that prosecution was
surprised by the production of ID 123 by the defence in the defence case does not arise
because this second report with its date was revealed in the course of the prosecution
case. It is pertinent to recall that when the issue of this second report was raised by
the defence during the cross examination of SP1, the Learned DPP Dato Gani Patail stated
that there was no signed reporet dated the 3/9/97. The truth is that the second report
dated 3/9/97 is not a signed report but an unsigned report. It is very important to note
that as admitted by SPi on recall, come of the SB reports are unsigned. The further cross
examination of PW1 on recall could undoubtedly lead one to conclude that ID 123 is similar
in many aspects with D25. SP1 admitted that ID 123 appears to be a SB report. He admitted
that it appears to be a follow-up or further investigation from D25. He admitted that the
print appears to be the same between ID123 and D25. The pagination and the words
"Rahsia Persendirian" were placed in the same position in ID123 as in D25. He
even admitted that it appeared to be a SB report. A comparison between D25 and 1D123 would
show that it is similar and a further investigation of the matter. What is important to
note is SP1 was in no position to deny that it was not a SB report. All that he could deny
is that he did not hand over ID123 to DSAI. He also admitted that it is difficult to
remember routine matters that happened in August 1997. some more than 19 months ago. On
the contrary there is no reason to dispute the positive and emphatic evidence of DSAI who
held the exalted office of DPM and Acting PM. Surely only a man in whom trust and
confidence would be reposed could hold such exalted office. in the circumstances. there is
no reason to doubt that ID 123 is indeed and in fact a report of SB which was handed over
to DSAI on 3/9/97. Since defence cannot pin-point who is the maker of the report and SPL
is in no position to say positively who is the maker. except that he is not. and in no
position to deny but on the contrary to admit that it

could be SBs report. It is submitted that the court should
hold that there is no reason to doubt the evidence of DSAI and to admit the report as
D123. We support our submission by the authority of Dato Harun Idris v PP (1978) 1 MLJ
240.247.

Further this Honourable Court is in no position to doubt the
truth of the contents of 1D123. The mode and manner in which ID123 was ultimately found
was convincingly explained by DSAI and DW21 (Datin Sen Dr. Wan Azizah). On the above
ground it is prayed that ID 123 be converted to D123 and given its due weight as to the
contents.

EXHIBIT P15

The fact, that DSAI is a victim of a conspiracy to fix
and frame him up is proved beyond any shadow of doubt by the fact that P15 which appears
to be written by several organisation including ABIM was refitted by DWI8, the President
of ABIM, who stated that in no uncertain terms that ABIM had absolutely no part in P15.

THE IGP INVOLVED THE SPECIAL BRANCH (SB)

From the evidence itis crystal clear that it was not
DSAI who involved the SB. It was the IGP who on the 8/8/97 involved the SB. On the 11/8/97
he gave a copy of P14A,B,C to the SB for investigations. He instructed them to investigate
and find out the truth. The IGP was the former SB officer and ought to know what he is
doing. He was kept briefed by SP1, SP11 and SP7. He fully knew of the matter and that the
matter involved DSAI. He also was informed by SP1 of the request made by DSAI. He issued
the press statement D24 after he was briefed by SP1. SP1 said that he would have carried
out investigation into the matter pursuant to the TOPs instructions to investigate
the matter and find out the truth even without DSAI's request. The IGP involved the SB
because it involved the security of the nation that could instablise the country in view
of the economic and political climate as stated by SP1. The contents of P14 which is
intended to incite hatred against the DPM is a national security matter which rightly
involves SB.

ULTIMATUM OF THE PRIME MINISTER (PM)

Whether we like it or note. this case smacks of
politics. DSAI mentioned in evidence that he was given the ultimatum by the Honorable PM
on 2/9/98 to either resign or face charges. which is the day of DSAI's dismissal from
office as DPM and Minister of Finance. It is a wonder how the Honourable PM could give
such an ultimatum on the 2/9/98 when the police S 11 2 statement of SP1 and SP11 were
taken in September, October 1998. Further how could Tun Daim on the 12/8/98 inform DSAI
that he will be charged? Exhibit P20 and P22 clearly shows that politics were involved in
this case.

SHOWING OF DW9's S 112 STATEMENT IN THE COURSE OF CROSS
EXAMINATION

It is respectfully submitted that Your Lordship erred in
allowing the prosecution. despite the defence objections. to show PW9 his S 112 statement
and to be cross examined on it.

It is submitted that the contents of S 112 statement are
inadmissible in evidence. The prosecution cannot be allowed to adduce the contents of S
112 statement indirectly under guise of cross examination. The only manner in which S 112
statement and its contents can be brought in on record is and only if impeachment
proceedings under S 155 of Evidence Act 1950 is undertaken. There was no attempt by the
prosecution to institute impeachment proceedings. As such the usage of S 145 of Evidence
Act to show the contents to the Honourable Court and cross examination of a witness
thereon without applying to impeach is wrong in law. It is an indirect way to admit the
contents of 112 statement as evidence.

In this regard we would like to point out that the attempt by
the defence to cross examine Ummi (PW17) by her statement on tape recording was denied. We
submit that S 145 is a step towards impeachment under S 155 and unless an application for
impeachment is intended or made S 145 cannot be utilised.

CREDIBILITY OF PW12 (AZIZAN BIN ABU BAKAR)

It is submitted that in view of the evidence of DSAI.
DW2, DW3, DW6 and DW21 which materially contradict PW12s version together with D55.
it is submitted that PWI 2 is devoid of any credibility.

Whilst Mr. Sukhdev Singh (DW15) was giving evidence the defence
appreciated the statement by the prosecution that. it is not part of their case that
Azizan made allegations against this lawyer DW15. This frankness by the prosecution
completely contradict Azizans evidence where he made serious, baseless and unfounded
allegations against DW 15. it clearly shows that Azizan is not to be believed at all.

CREDIBILITY OF UMI (PW 17)

In view of the evidence of DSAI, DW8, DW14, D89, D90 and
her own evidence of not knowing or meeting Khairuddin from July 1998 until 2/11/98 clearly
shows that PWL7 is not a truthful and reliable witness. She also has ulterior motives and
pure unmitigated hatred for DSAI which could not even be concealed as shown in D89. She
obviously met and knew Khairuddin well in September 1998.

BIAS AND PREJUDICE OF THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER (PW13 )

In addition to the submission made by us at the close of
the prosecution case we rely on the Affidavit of PW 13 (D135) the content of which clearly
shows the serious and grave prejudice PWl3 bears against DSAI. He being involved in this
case as a witness and as an I.0 of P16 on 15/8/97 and also involved in the related cases
either directly or as head in the cases of Sukma, Mior, Dato Nalla and knowing the full
facts of the case of Munawar ought not to have been the I.O who must be fair, independent
and impartial. He did not take a single statement from DSAI or from the witnesses who
could have stated the facts and who were favourable to the defence

THE MEETINGS BETWEEN SP1, SP11 AND DSAI WERE PRIVATE AND
NOT OFFICIAL

DSAI clearly gave evidence that the meetings were all
private and informal. Such meetings were not entered in diaries or any minutes kept
because they were not official meetings. This evidence was not challenged. As such there
isno question of DSAI using or abusing his official position or office.

AMPLE EVIDENCE OF POLICE CONSPIRACY AGAINST DSAI

1. In 1997 the whole police force was for and in favour
of DSAI.

2. See P17  P22, D23,D24,D25,NFA by the CID and ID123 and
D131.

3. In 1997 there was intention to prosecute UMI and AZIZAN.

4. 19/6/98  21/6/98 UMNO general assembly.

5. Buku 50 Dalil distributed at UMNO assembly.

6. Change of attitute by police against DSAI.

7. Police instead of investigating on the complaint by DSAI in
P16 and D85 investigated against the complainant.

8. The complainant became the accused.

9. Investigation under the Emergency Ordinance for corruption
despite there being no complaint of misuse or abuse of power by DSAI.

10. DSAI dismissed on 2/9/98.

11. Actual investigation in respect of the charges now faced
only after DSAIs dismissal by virtue of statement from main prosecution witnesses
PW1 and PW11 witness being taken in Sept/Oct 1998.

12. Differences with Home Minister i.e. P.M. who controls the
Police Dept.

13. DSAI suffers assault on the very day of arrest showing the
attitude, hatred and malice of police.

14. D76 and D77 show the conspiracy.

QUESTION OF HEARSAY

In the course of the defence case this Honourable Court
repeatedly ruled that all evidence of any conversation which DSAI had with the Honourable
PM, the Honourable AG, the Former IGP and others is hearsay. Despite arguments, where the
defence contended to the contrary, this Court ruled against the defence and said all the
evidence is hearsay.

The defence had no choice but to accept this Courts ruling
graciously despite the defence disagreement. That being so then the same law and ruling
must apply to the prosecution. This would mean that all the evidence of PW1,PW11, WI2 and
PW13 where DSAL allegedly stated certain thing including most importantly the alleged
instruction given to SPI and SPI I must of necessity and pursuant to and in Accordance
with this Honourable Courts ruling be applied with equal rigor and force against the
prosecution and all such evidence of what allegedly DSAI said must be ruled inadmissible
and therefore expunged. The law must apply equally and in the same manner to the
prosecution and defence. That will leave not an iota or shred of evidence against DSAI and
as night follows day and day follows night DSAI on this ground alone must be acquitted.

CONCLUSION:

On the whole evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence
it is most respectfully and humbly submitted to Your Lordship that the prosecution has
failed to discharge the burden of proof which in incumbent upon it and that the defence
has cast more than a reasonable doubt.

It may be pertinent to remember what Sir Thomas Moore. the
former Lord Chancellor of England. said at the conclusion of his trial on a trumped up,
false and fabricated case in which the witnesses for the prosecution gave perjured
evidence.

In relation to the perjured evidence given against him by the
then AG of Wales. Sir Thomas Moore said, "One does not sell ones soul for the
whole world and you did it for Wales". Needless to say all those who gave perjured
evidence against Sir Thomas Moore including the AG of Wales were all tried for perjury,
found guilty and executed within 5 years. But Sir Thomas Moore though executed became a
legend and lives on.

It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses in this case also
gave untruthful evidence.

In all good conscience and under the law as it stands when the
Accused is not required do prove his innocence DSAI must stand Acquitted and Discharged.
We so pray we are most obliged to your Lordship.

GURBACHAN SINGH

COUNSEL FOR DATO SERI ANWAR B. IBRAHIM

THIS SUBMISSION OF DATO SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM (Al) AT THE CLOSE OF
THE DEFENCE CASE IS FILED BY